:I've learned much from this mishap and am taking steps to improve for next time. The silver lining in setbacks is that they establish a good baseline for improvement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 13:29, 27 August 2015 (EDT)

:I've learned much from this mishap and am taking steps to improve for next time. The silver lining in setbacks is that they establish a good baseline for improvement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 13:29, 27 August 2015 (EDT)

+

+

::It would be a good idea to restore all the missing edits from [[Conservapedia:Community Portal]] if you can. [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] ([[User talk:EJamesW|talk]]) 17:58, 27 August 2015 (EDT)

Protected redirect page

Hello! Sorry to bother you, but I've been through the administrator list and picked you at random. I thought you would be able to edit a protected page which I can't: Conservapedia:Administrators (a redirect). I'd like you to add the text #Administrators after "Guidelines", so the page redirects to Conservapedia:Guidelines#Administrators, which is a more specific and more accurate target. This is a tiny issue, but it's one that bothered me, so I'd be grateful if you could fix it. Chinken 18:53, 21 June 2015 (EDT)

Article for Deletion

Andy, even in an essay we should not allow obviously wrong statements. In Essay:Calming the Storm, there are a couple of falsehoods which the essay is based on. The most obvious one is perhaps:

“

In the Mark verse above, traditional translations insert the word "said" as though Jesus caused the calming by verbally ordering the sea to be still. But "λέγω" -- the Greek term used for said in some versions -- does not appear in the Greek above,

”

The Greek term appears in the Greek above - it wasn't just recognized by the author of the essay!

Therefore, traditional translations have nothing to "insert", they just translate what is present!

That's why I think that essay should be deleted. If you think otherwise, you should make your case, and not just repeatedly erase the {{delete}}-tag: Just ignoring my arguments doesn't prove them wrong - or go away... --AugustO 04:37, 28 June 2015 (EDT)

The verb λέγω is irregular. Here are the tenses for the third person singular indicative active:

3rd Person Indicative Singular Active

Present

λέγει

he says

Aorist

εἶπε

he said

Future

ἐρεῖ

he will say

Perfect

εἴρηκε

he has said

Imperfect

ἔλεγε

he used to say

Pluperfect

ᾐρήκει

he had said

Now look at the sentece: καὶ διεγερθεὶς ἐπετίμησεν τῷ ἀνέμῳ καὶ εἶπεν τῇ θαλάσσῃ, Σιώπα, πεφίμωσο. So, remembering the movable ν, a form of the verb λέγω can be spotted in the verse: the aorist, simply and cleraly meaning "he said". How can you say that ""λέγω" -- the Greek term used for said in some versions -- does not appear in the Greek"? And how can you go on to ignore this mistake?

I removed two false statements from your essay

As you won't do it yourself, I stepped up and removed the following two obviously false statements from your essay:

“

Is "rebuked" the correct translation of the Greek term "ἐπιτιμάω", which appears in all three verses above and in connection with other miracles, such as Jesus's lifting of the fever in Luke 4:39? The real meaning of the Greek "ἐπιτιμάω" is closer to "judge" than to affirmatively rebuke. The term can even be used in a positive manner, as in "honor" or "raise the price of." The English term "rebuke" carries the primary connotation of a verbal communication, while in the Greek ἐπιτιμάω has the primary connotation of a non-verbal judgment.

”

“

In the Mark verse above, traditional translations insert the word "said" as though Jesus caused the calming by verbally ordering the sea to be still. But "λέγω" -- the Greek term used for said in some versions -- does not appear in the Greek above, and where it does appear in Greek versions its real meaning is to "lay", to "cause to lie down," or to "put to sleep." It only has a connotation of speaking when used in a context of verbal communication (as in putting one word with another), which is not the case here.

He's been editing for about 8 hours straight. As the quantity of edits increases, the quality is likely to deteriorate. Perhaps it's time for him to take a break, and you could suggest that a break is worthwhile. Thanks, GregG 17:29, 4 July 2015 (EDT)

GregG, what notable conservative organizations, news organizations, organizations or websites, have cited your articles? GregG, how many page views has your most popular article received? Has the Chicago Tribune ever cited one of your articles in non-critical manner? Has Concerned Women of America ever cited one of your articles? Has one of the largest Christian organizations in the world ever cited one of your articles as a resource to their readers?

By the way, one of my most recent articles Atheism and social justice was shared over 75 times at a popular website and the article is only about a few weeks old.

Instead of concern trolling about the quality of the User: Conservative account edits, why don't you show the editors of the User: Consevative account how its done! Conservative 17:43, 4 July 2015 (EDT)

One last thing: The User: Conservative account will not be muzzled on Independence Day due to a concern troll. Let freedom ring! Conservative 19:19, 4 July 2015 (EDT)

Block of Burke39

I see that User:Burke39's recent 2-month block has just expired. Apparently it was for something he wrote about ephebophilia, or pedophilia, or thelarche, or something; I don't know; I haven't looked at the edits. In any case, after the block expired, he made trivial changes to his signature on earlier edits, and was immediately blocked again. The new block reason said "still obsessed with aberant sex entries. See: 'Talk:Pedophilia'" He may or may not be obsessed, but he did not make any nontrivial edits.

The idea that, after being released from incarceration, one can be incarcerated again for the same offense, is the way the justice system of the Communist Soviet Union worked. It suggests that Burke39 is simply going to be blocked for a week, every week. This doesn't seem right.

Being on the left, I am sure you know how the Communist Soviet Union worked. I am also sure you understand that leftist agitators often made unreasonable demands/accusations which you are doing now.

As playful ad-hominems go, I'd give that about a 6. I'd give it a 7, but the Soviet Union dissolved over 25 years ago. You can do better. I'd give you a nice zinger in reply, but I can't think of one just now. Sorry. Leftist agitators? Nice. Unreasonable demands? Well, I don't think Conservapedia should be emulating the Soviet justice system. In fact, we have this concept in the United States justice system commonly called "double jeopardy". It's generally frowned upon; in fact, in our legal system, it's forbidden. Being on the left, I am sure you know how that concept works.

Burke39 was told to lay off the sexual aberrancy topics. VargasMilan and I don't have a lot of confidence in his edits in these topic areas. There are lot of topics outside of sexual aberrancy where he can create articles. How about he create a Clock entry or a Model train entry or a The Trouble with Atheism entry? Conservative 16:57, 12 July 2015 (EDT)

But getting back to the topic at hand, writing about clocks sounds fascinating. I'm surprised (seriously!) that CP doesn't have an article on this topic. I'm going to contact him and see if he's enthusiastic about writing such an article. Not sure about atheism and clocks, though. We will leave that to you, OK?

His block will expire at 13:23 on Sunday. I've been in extensive email conversation with him. He says that he doesn't really know anything interesting or useful to say about clocks or model trains. I agree with him; articles should be written by people are are at enthusiastic about the topic. (By the way, where did you come up with those two topics? He doesn't remember ever expressing an interest in them.)

What he wants to write about are topics related to Freemasonry, Judaism, and antisemitism. From our email exchanges, I think he will do very well in these areas.

Opinion on Bernie Sanders

Hi Dr. Schlafly,

Given a scenario where you were forced to pick between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders for president, who would you pick? I was interested in hearing your opinion and justification about this matter.

I am postive he would stay home rather than choose a vote between two far-left septuagenarians.--Jpatt 17:20, 13 July 2015 (EDT)

Still trolling, huh, "TMullis"? You just can't help it but to prove us right all the time. Guess it's a weakness. Karajou 18:16, 13 July 2015 (EDT)

If I was an American I'd abstain or vote no confidence. JohnSelway 21:26, 13 July 2015 (EDT)

I would write-in a candidate, or vote in the election but not vote for anyone for that office. I never vote for a pro-abortion candidate, even if a Republican.--Andy Schlafly 01:42, 15 July 2015 (EDT)

Bernie Sanders doesn't have the stomach for aggressive fundraising and he doesn't seem to want to delegate that out to someone who does. So his chances of being the next U.S. president are effectively zero. Eventually, his campaign supply lines will be stretched too thin. Barring her scandals weighing her further down in a much more significant way and barring health issues, Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic presidential nominee. She does not have any reluctance when it comes to campaign fundraising. Conservative 04:23, 15 July 2015 (EDT)

Sanders is attracting Democrats who used to support Warren, Biden, and others. While the media played up the "Sanders surge," Democratic support for Hillary actually edged up from 62 percent to 63 percent.[1] I find it difficult to fathom why anyone would vote for corruption queen Hillary, but numerous polls testify that she has a solid base of support this time around, unlike 2008. PeterKa 06:47, 15 July 2015 (EDT)

It is easy to fathom why someone would vote for corruption queen Hillary. For countries which have elections, they often get the leaders they deserve. Corrupt people vote for corrupt politicians. Conservative 07:21, 15 July 2015 (EDT)

Sexuality topic ban

My main interest right now is going to be editing articles about anti-Semitism, Judaism, and Freemasonry. But I'm interested in some editing of sexuality articles. If I do more thorough research before editing these articles, and I do not put any liberal pro-perversion edits in, and I also edit other topics and do not exclusively edit sexuality topics, can I edit sexuality articles and have the topic ban removed? The reason I have not been editing much since the block expiring is because I want to thoroughly research every topic I edit before I edit it. For example, I'm going to thoroughly research anti-Semitism, Judaism and Freemasonry before editing those topics. And the same will be the case for sexuality if my topic ban is removed there. Paul Bustion User:Burke39 17:11, 20 July 2015 (EDT)

Ok, I understand. As long as my edits to the sexuality topic area are "informative, family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language" as the rule 3 statement requires and they comply with the other rules as well, and as long as that is not the only topic area I edit, am I allowed to edit sexuality related articles?Paul Bustion 23:11, 20 July 2015 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, I'm sorry, I should have clarified this. My screen signature is Paul Bustion, my real life name, so maybe that was confusing. I'm User:Burke39. VargasMilan and Conservative topic banned me from sexuality articles. They said I have a "creepy/bizarre liberal" viewpoint on sexual issues. I'm requesting that the topic ban be removed. I agree that if it is removed I will only make sourced, informative, non-explicit/family friendly, and anti-perversion edits. I will not promote deviant sexuality, I will not make unsourced statements, I will not be explicit in descriptions. I also will edit other topic areas besides sexuality. If I agree to all of that can my topic ban on sexuality articles be abolished?Paul Bustion User:Burke39 00:43, 21 July 2015 (EDT)

My main point was to ask if the topic ban against me editing sexuality articles could be abolished? Can it?Paul Bustion 02:21, 22 July 2015 (EDT)

The main reason I put the topical ban on you is that I don't have the time or inclination to want to monitor your edits and I thought you were irritating VargasMilan with all the edits on abnormal sexuality that sometimes took a liberal point of view (which is probably because many of the experts in psychology have a irreligious/liberal point of view).

Why don't you do anti-Semitism, Judaism, and Freemasonry edits for 30 days and then the topical ban could be lifted as long as you do what you said you were going to do above. I think that would be a suitable compromise. Conservative 06:52, 22 July 2015 (EDT)

He hasn't explained himself yet. Two months ago I noted that you have to be a kind of like an expert to treat these topics conservatively. Much of what Burke is rehearsing is prior mistakes he made that he should have known not to do in the first place, if he were an expert. He hasn't demonstrated expertise. We also don't have an explanation for the sockpuppets with similar names and interests that appeared after he was blocked. Shouldn't we look into those first to make sure he's not being insincere and/or trolling us? VargasMilan 16:12, 22 July 2015 (EDT)

Andy and Cons: Thank you for attending to this in a positive way. I'm confident that Paul will do well in his future edits here. From my email exchanges with him, he seems to be a knowledgeable, earnest, and forthright person. I believe that the suggestion above (stay away from sexuality for 30 days, and until his expertise and forthrightness have been established) is a reasonable one. He may well turn out to be quite an expert in topics like antisemitism. SamHB 16:45, 22 July 2015 (EDT)

VargasMilan, thanks for you input.

Why don't you workout some counter proposal to mine as far as the topic ban. Perhaps extending the topic ban to 90 or 120 or 180 days or a year or 2 years or 5 years. I suggest working out something out with you, Andy and Burke39.

And then if Burke39 contributes poor content to sexuality articles down the pike, the topical ban could be made longer the second time around or be made permanent.

On the other hand, if you feel strongly the topic ban should be made permanent due to the sockpuppets with similar names, etc., then say so. Conservative 17:36, 22 July 2015 (EDT)

He should be an editor in good standing at Conservapedia before even asking for the privilege. If that takes three months of brilliant editing, good. If that takes a year of so-so editing and maybe a probational period where he does alright, okay. If he shows more of the same problems, probably not. VargasMilan 00:26, 23 July 2015 (EDT)

That sounds good to me. And since it is Andy's wiki, I will let you, Andy, and Burke39 work things out. Andy gave Burke39 the green light to edit sexuality related articles pursuant to the conditions that Burke39 said he would impose on himself. Perhaps, you can convince Andy otherwise. I am on the record as siding with you. Conservative 02:44, 23 July 2015 (EDT)

Burke39:

You should feel free to edit articles on any topic, such as the ones you suggested (anti-Semitism, Judaism, and Freemasonry), but I'd recommend staying away from sexuality topics. I don't really understand Conservapedia's stance on sexuality, and I never edit on such topics. Don't fret over just why people wanted you to stay away; I never figured out what their gripe was either. Just stay away.

Please don't get too stressed out over just what Cons and VM think of you. Proceed normally. Don't worry about "He should be an editor in good standing at Conservapedia before even asking for the privilege." Just stay away from sexuality, the way I stay away from creationism.

Now there is no guarantee that you won't be arbitrarily blocked for reasons that seem frivolous. (In fact there's no guarantee of anything in this life, is there?) These things happen. I was blocked by Ed Poor 7 years ago, with no explanation (he didn't put any explanation on my user page.) Several attempts, over the next few years, to get him to explain what this "probation" meant, were unsuccessful. Eventually I just forgot about it, and so did he. We collaborated amicably after that.

Rehearing en banc denied in Sissel

I heard this week that the D.C. Circuit denied rehearing en banc of Sissel (the case that brought an origination clause challenge to Obamacare), with four judges dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc (although they indicated they would find no violation of the origination clause because of the shell bill tactic). The challengers are planning to go to the Supreme Court. What are your thoughts? Thanks, GregG (talk) 12:58, 8 August 2015 (EDT)

Four judges dissented, but not because they disagreed with the outcome, as you astutely point out. The rationale in the dissent was thereby disappointing to me.

But four dissents is better than no dissents from the denial of the petition for rehearing, and the attorneys for Sissel will petition the U.S. Supreme for a writ of certiorari. It requires only four votes to grant cert., not five. Hopefully cert. will be granted. This is an issue of enormous national importance.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2015 (EDT)

If the King challengers couldn't even get four votes on their side for the final decision, I'm not sure Sissel is going to fare much better before the Supreme Court.

Also, you might be interested in an arbitration development: after over three years of delay, the liberal California Supreme Court released a decision last week in Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co. in which all the justices agreed that the terms in the arbitration clause that the plaintiff challenged were not unconscionable under California law. (The court did not look kindly upon the arguments made by the plaintiff purchaser of a Mercedes that an arbitral appeal would be prohibitively expensive for him.) GregG (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

This is good news about the California Supreme Court upholding an arbitration clause, right? I guess the adage that "bad facts make bad law" has a helpful converse: good facts, in this case an Mercedes-Benz buyer complaining about the costs of arbitration, makes good law!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

I think the California Supreme Court reached the right result in the case. However, it should be noted that the two major arbitration forums have limits on consumer arbitration fees regardless of ability to pay (AAA is $200, as adopted in March 2013 to replace a schedule that had unlimited fees for consumers in cases involving more than $75,000 or non-monetary relief; JAMS is $250), and the most recent serious scholarship defending large arbitration fees comes from 2006 by Ware (who previously criticized caps on consumer arbitration fees that did not take into account the consumer's ability to pay) and Drahozal (who argued that contingent fee lawyers should be able to pay arbitration fees and still save as compared to court costs). This may be moot if, as I advocate (and you can help with this advocacy!), Congress sets minimum standards for all consumer arbitration cases instead of more disruptive legislation like the Arbitration Fairness Act. When the CFPB predictably attempts to ban all consumer arbitration clauses in financial contracts, I plan to propose a rule based on the minimum standards as a compromise. GregG (talk) 22:21, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

This is great information. I'll help build some more entries about this.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2015 (EDT)

Those are good links to helpful resources. Thanks!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2015 (EDT)

New Hampshire Primary

I took the liberty of moving the page on the New Hampshire primary from NH primary to New Hampshire Primary. Revert it if you want but I feel this version is better and is in the same style as the page you created for the Iowa Primary. FFAF (talk) 00:31, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

Math markup code broken

Help! It seems that, whenever I edit anything within math markup (<math>...</math>), I get a big red "Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable. Please see math/README to configure.)" This obviously got broken at the time of the recent upgrade. It seems that all existing math markup code is OK, because it is in a cache somewhere. But the slightest change to any math markup gets the error. SamHB (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2015 (EDT)

Thanks, I'm aware of this and am working on it. Suggestions are welcome.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2015 (EDT)

That's wonderful that you got working so quickly. I had not been optimistic about a quick resolution, and my reply to your "Suggestions are welcome" wasn't going to be very cheery. You see, we had a similar problem from a software upgrade over at Ameriwiki, and fixing it was a drawn-out and frustrating process. And I doubted that Fergus Mason (or anyone at RW!) was going to be inclined to help. SamHB (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2015 (EDT)

Thanks again for raising the issue of the math software problem. I'd quote Proverbs or Psalms for the ability to fix the bug, but I can't think of a particularly appropriate verse right now for successful debugging.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2015 (EDT)

What about an announcement at the main-page? Perhaps even a short apology for the inconvenience? --AugustO (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2015 (EDT)

Man, that's the second time in a few years where you've lost an entire week's worth of contributions. I can't recall such a thing ever happening at Wikipedia -- to what do you ascribe the difference? SaulJ (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2015 (EDT)

More of a spiritual focus here than at Wikipedia. And I don't think the loss of some talk-page rants or routine housecleaning is going to matter in the long run. It wasn't a full week, and many of the substantive edits have been restored.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2015 (EDT)

I have not been able to recover my user page. I made significant changes to it, changing the "semi-retired, but not dead" title to something better. You may recall having asked me, while replying to something else, to do that. I put a lot of work into that change, and I can't recover it from my browser cache. I also didn't make a copy of the file itself, though I often make copies. I was going to do it the next day. (Hand of God here?) Is there any chance you can recover it for me? I consider it a very substantive change, referring to my philosophy of what topics I edit on. SamHB (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2015 (EDT)

SamHB, it should be in your browser cache. I will take a look also in what I have.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2015 (EDT)

UPDATE: I just restored the lost edits to your user page.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2015 (EDT)

IIRC, this is the second time that a couple of hundred edits were lost. Andy, you say that nothing important went missing, but it is tedious to repeat "routine housecleaning". At the moment, I don't feel inclined to add links to the verses of the CBP: that is nothing which I should have to do over and over again.

I get 500-errors quite often when I try to visit the site. So, your technical problems haven't disappeared yet. How likely is another "bad computer crush"?

This wiki hasn't much traffic: 500 edits in a week isn't that impressive. I don't think that this will improve much, especially when you show such contempt for your editors: "I don't think the loss of some talk-page rants or routine housecleaning is going to matter in the long run!" In the long run, all wikis will disappear. It's the middle distance which counts!

I found that Bing.com has cached pages from the six days gone lost. I will be adding my work shortly. --Jpatt (talk) 11:52, 27 August 2015 (EDT)

Thank you, thank you, thank you, for finding and restoring my user page. While you were doing that, I was redoubling/retripling/requadrupling my efforts to extract the information out of my Firefox cache. The explanations I found on the internet, explaining how to actually get the data back, all seemed to go off into the weeds at that point. Then I found a utility that actually does the job correctly. It's downloadable freeware. Though it's not commercial, I know we're very sensitive about "spamming link to external sites". May I post its URL here? I figure that your talk page is the right place for it, since this seems to be where people are discussing the crash.
I will be restoring more material over the next few days. Thanks again. SamHB (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2015 (EDT)

That's wonderful, SamHB! Yes, please do post its URL here, though presumably that works only for Firefox (which is a superb browser).

The program is "mozillacacheview", at http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/mozillacacheview.zip. No installation procedure or other messy stuff. Just a zip file with mozillacachereview.exe and a couple of documentation files. Unzip it and run it. It's for Firefox, though the web site seems to have utilities for other browsers also. SamHB (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2015 (EDT)

At this point, I estimate that only about 50 substantive edits by all users have not yet been restored from the data outage. I have most of those (thanks to another very skillful editor) and will restore much of them (other than the ones that SamHB is taking care of) over time. There is no point in restoring the talk page or headline edits, which are time sensitive and worth trimming later anyway.

AugustO, may I humbly recommend Matthew 13:3, the parable of the scattered seeds. By the way, I think the span references are better positioned at the beginning of the verse itself, rather than the verse number, so that when the link is clicked all of the verse appears to the viewer. More generally, thanks much for your patience and for your efforts.

I've learned much from this mishap and am taking steps to improve for next time. The silver lining in setbacks is that they establish a good baseline for improvement.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2015 (EDT)